Talk:Holocaust analogy in animal rights: Difference between revisions
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:Holocaust analogy in animal rights/Archives/ 1. (BOT) |
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussions to Talk:Holocaust analogy in animal rights/Archives/ 1. (BOT) |
||
Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
*'''Remove''' per K.e.coffman and Mathglot. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 22:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC) |
*'''Remove''' per K.e.coffman and Mathglot. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 22:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC) |
||
{{cob}} |
{{cob}} |
||
== Large-scale trimming down of this article == |
|||
Hi there. I have [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Animal_cruelty_and_the_Holocaust_analogy&type=revision&diff=1066985866&oldid=1066946136 significantly trimmed] down this article, as I felt it was too quote-heavy from PETA-aligned individuals, among other things. Also removed content cited to Reddit or YouTube channels. As [[WP:SPS]] says, {{xt|if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources}}. Kept quotes from published books. |
|||
If editors disagree with any of my edits, feel free to revert me. I'm aware I have been very bold with cutting down this article. —[[User:AFreshStart|AFreshStart]] ([[User talk:AFreshStart|talk]]) 04:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|AFreshStart}} I support trimming but I object to the removal of citations and wikilinks without discussions. I am not going to revert now because everything is tangled and other people are editing, but I feel that sources and name drops to prominent commentators have extra value. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Bluerasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 12:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:: That's fair enough. Out of curiosity, which sources are you referring to? I really don't think we should be re-adding the YouTube or Reddit links, but I'm less certain about removing opinion pieces. The main reason I removed them in my edits was because they were incorrectly attributed. I know my edits were quite drastic, but seeing as this page has evidently had some long-standing issues I was unaware of (as raised by the lead image discussion), I thought it better to be bold. —[[User:AFreshStart|AFreshStart]] ([[User talk:AFreshStart|talk]]) 13:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|AFreshStart}} I object to the outcome of your actions but you personally did everything correctly. Sometimes correct actions result in undesirable outcomes. Thanks for doing everything right. |
|||
:::You link to your changes in your first comment, thanks for that. The first thing I see is that you deleted the wikilink to ''[[Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust]]''. This book was cited in the first sentence and two times elsewhere. Now it seems to be cited once. Perhaps it should be featured in the article text in addition to being a citation, because it seems to have respected positions on this topic and also fact-checks some claims which other named individuals make. |
|||
:::You removed the wikilink in the text body to [[Alex Hershaft]] due to citation to reddit. However, this is a person with their own wiki article and a media reputation for talking about the subject of this article. In general I supporting deleting content without reliable references, and I do not expect reviewers to hunt down those sources on the open Internet, but I do encourage reviewers to tolerate lack of sources in one article so long as by linking to a Wikipedia article one can easily find lots of sources. This guy is an animal rights activist and a Holocaust survivor and is famous for both; text about his views belongs in the body of this article. |
|||
:::You removed the link to [[Joey Carbstrong]], and while sourcing is not as strong for him, he is on-topic for this article, and perhaps there should be a link to him somewhere here. [[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Bluerasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 16:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::No worries, and thank you for being [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] with me. I understand this is a contentious topic with strong feelings on either side. |
|||
::::I thought that the second paragraph in the lead was undue, but I don't mind it being re-added to the lead (although if it is, I think it should be in the initial sentence, with the criticism from the ADL and USHMM ''after'' those quotes to avoid giving these specific comments undue prominence). I also think that ''[[Eternal Treblinka]]'' should be mentioned cited in-text; I'd be all for someone who is more familiar with the book including a brief summary here, as it seems appropriate. |
|||
::::I'm not against including [[Alex Hershaft]]'s opinions ''at all'' in this article; as you say, he has a Wikipedia article and is definitely notable and on-topic for this article. I would prefer better sourcing (preferably from a third party) that summarises his views, rather than rely on [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]]. But I don't mind a brief summary of Hershaft's views cited to the Reddit comments. After all, he is pictured in the article, and mentioned in the sources here. As you say, he is famous for talking about both issues. |
|||
::::I have more of an issue re [[Joey Carbstrong]]'s comments about the term 'holocaust' being used to refer to the Armenian genocide (or a nuclear holocaust) as proof that the term 'holocaust' isn't specific to Jewish people... This rather overlooks the point that both of these terms refer to harm to human beings (well, the latter is the collapse of all civilisation, but I think you get my point). That's not even going into the subject of non-Jewish [[Holocaust victims]], but that's a subject for a different article. I'm not an expert, but looking at his article, it's clear that he's known for making a lot of purposefully inflammatory comments on the topics of veganism and animal rights. His comments seem to go against the principles of [[WP:SPS]] and [[WP:ABOUTSELF]], imo. A problem with these self-published sources means some of the specifics are hardly ever debunked, as they are unlikely to garner the attention of fact-checkers (unlike a book or other published media). —[[User:AFreshStart|AFreshStart]] ([[User talk:AFreshStart|talk]]) 17:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== "...stated the reason he survived..." == |
|||
I removed this from the caption of Mr Hershaft's photo as shown in this [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Animal_cruelty_and_the_Holocaust_analogy&type=revision&diff=1067145676&oldid=1067144825 diff]: ''...and stated that the reason he survived was to end the oppression of animals.'' My reasoning was that article is not the place to advance his viewpoint for which he has no proof; moreover, he was a child back then. --[[User:K.e.coffman|K.e.coffman]] ([[User talk:K.e.coffman|talk]]) 00:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
: Thanks for spotting that! Yeah, that definitely needed to go... —[[User:AFreshStart|AFreshStart]] ([[User talk:AFreshStart|talk]]) 15:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Rename and change focus - "Holocaust analogy in animal rights activism" == |
== Rename and change focus - "Holocaust analogy in animal rights activism" == |
Revision as of 07:58, 24 January 2023
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Holocaust analogy in animal rights article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 18 August 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
On 25 January 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Holocaust analogy and animal rights. The result of the discussion was moved to Holocaust analogy in animal rights. |
Lead image used in article
Hiding content due to the sensitive nature of the topic. The consensus seems to be to remove these images from the lead and to have it blank. As this attracted a lot of attention, editors ought not to introduce images to the lead without discussing them on this talk page first. Thank you. —AFreshStart (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
| ||
---|---|---|
@Koopinator: With regards to the lead image used in this article, do we really have to use the comparison of Buchenwald victims to those of dead pigs? Yes, Wikipedia is not censored, I understand the visual similarities and the fact that these comparisons have been used by some animal rights organisations – as mentioned in the source you cited – but I believe this lead image is gratuitously offensive. The cited source (which, btw, is an opinion piece) calls the comparison "truly despicable... on several levels", likening it to KKK-style hate speech. Likening any dead person to a non-human animal is generally considered bad taste, never mind those who died in a genocide. Plus, the fact that pigs are considered unclean in Jewish dietary law just adds to the offensiveness here. If this image really needs to be included, I would argue that it should be moved further down in the article, a mention in the caption to the fact that likening Jewish Holocaust victims to dead pigs is considered offensive on a number of levels by most people (mentioned in the source Koopinator cited). But even that seems gratuitous to me. Pinging active users who have heavily edited this page, Holocaust victims, or the Animal rights movement pages in order to facilitate a wider discussion: @NMaia:, @Tryptofish:, @Crum375:, @C.J. Griffin:, @Rasnaboy:, @Ozhistory:, @Doczilla:, @Miniapolis:, @DocWatson42:, @Gobonobo:, @Mashaunix:. —AFreshStart (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Edit: Also pinging @AndyTheGrump:, @BD2412:, @Mathglot: and @BilledMammal:, who have also been involved in previous discussions on this talk page. Sorry if this seems excessive, but I really do think we need to make sure there is a wide range of opinions when gauging consensus on something as serious as this. —AFreshStart (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
(←) Thanks for the ping. I agree that the image (not to mention the unwitting comparison) is gratuitously offensive, and has a boomerang effect. Miniapolis 19:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Mathglot. This article has too many problems even to list, but at the very least the resoundingly inappropriate juxtaposition of these two unrelated images should be promptly removed. If PETA used this comparison then that is harmful and quite despicable (though that's no surprise as just about everything they do is harmful and despicable); it gives us no possible reason or licence to do the same. No objection to a single image of a heap of dead animals of some other species; that should be easy enough to find with all the foot-and-mouth and mad cow and so on. Here's one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
|
Rename and change focus - "Holocaust analogy in animal rights activism"
Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy → ? – The current title of this article is "Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy". Much of the content here compares animal cruelty to the Holocaust, but little or none compares the Holocaust to animal cruelty.
Should this article include comparisons of the Holocaust to animal cruelty? I think no, because there are enough sources here to only focus on how animal rights activists have used this comparison without also trying to include Holocaust comparisons with animals too.
Like sheep to the slaughter is one article giving one narrow comparison of the Holocaust to animal treatment, but I can imagine there were many comparisons. When compared in that way the discussion has nothing to do with animal rights; it seems to me to be a way of describing a situation. I cannot quickly find other comparisons but I expect that they exist.
If this article will not compare the Holocaust to animal treatment, then can we rename it to clarify that the comparison here only goes in the direction of animal rights to Holocaust, and not also the reverse? Possible titles:
- Animal rights activists' use of Holocaust comparisons
- Holocaust analogy for explaining animal rights
- Holocaust analogy in animal rights activism
- Animal rights activism using Holocaust analogies
Thoughts from others? Bluerasberry (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think the titles suggested would be accurate as the article features quotes from people who are not involved in animal rights activism (e.g. Marguerite Yourcenar, AFAIK) making the analogy. --Kzkzb (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- I was thinking of a change along those lines myself, and I think it would focus the article better. "Holocaust analogy in animal rights activism" would be my preference if this article changed titles. But I'm very much on the fence about this. —AFreshStart (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- I, too, am interested in a rename along these lines, so thanks, Bluerasberry, for raising the issue. Until fairly recently, the page was called Animal rights and the Holocaust, and although I think that changing from "Holocaust" to "Holocaust analogy" was an improvement, I would have opposed the change from "animal rights" to "animal cruelty" if I had been paying attention at the time of the move. So I definitely support changing back to an emphasis on animal rights. But animal rights activism is something specific (think PETA and the Animal Liberation Front) and at least part of the page is more about writers and scholars, as correctly noted by Kzkzb. Perhaps "Holocaust analogy in animal rights theory" or "Holocaust analogy and animal rights"? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Those sound better, I agree (and I do remember thinking that the "animal rights" to "animal cruelty" change was odd at the time of the move, but I wasn't that fussed one way or another at the time). —AFreshStart (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, we should likely get rid of the "animal cruelty" part as some would argue that the killing of animals for food (for example) isn't cruel. The "Holocaust analogy and animal rights" title makes sense to me; although "Holocaust analogy in animal rights" might be better.
- Should we add the
{{subst:Requested move}}
template to this discussion? --Kzkzb (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)- That sounds like a good idea. —AFreshStart (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Kzkzb: You should start a fresh move request discussion first with either a clear set of options for people to motion for or a single option for people to motion for or against. Retroactively adding a move request template to an existing discussion is a confusing approach, and it also front loads the move request discussion with a false sense of consensus. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that there should be some options clearly listed here. It looks to me like the top 3 contenders so far are (in no particular order):
- Holocaust analogy in animal rights theory
- Holocaust analogy and animal rights
- Holocaust analogy in animal rights
- I'd be ok with any of those three, and don't have a strong preference. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- I, too, am interested in a rename along these lines, so thanks, Bluerasberry, for raising the issue. Until fairly recently, the page was called Animal rights and the Holocaust, and although I think that changing from "Holocaust" to "Holocaust analogy" was an improvement, I would have opposed the change from "animal rights" to "animal cruelty" if I had been paying attention at the time of the move. So I definitely support changing back to an emphasis on animal rights. But animal rights activism is something specific (think PETA and the Animal Liberation Front) and at least part of the page is more about writers and scholars, as correctly noted by Kzkzb. Perhaps "Holocaust analogy in animal rights theory" or "Holocaust analogy and animal rights"? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Requested move 25 January 2022
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved to Holocaust analogy in animal rights. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Animal cruelty and the Holocaust analogy → Holocaust analogy and animal rights – Per a previous discussion.
TL;DR: Although the article is concerned with the use of the analogy in the context of animal rights, the article's current name doesn't make it clear.
Suggested names:
- Holocaust analogy in animal rights theory
- Holocaust analogy and animal rights
- Holocaust analogy in animal rights
-- Kzkzb (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support any of those three, no strong preference among them. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging the users involved in the previous discussion: Bluerasberry; AFreshStart;Iskandar323. --Kzkzb (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support any of these; slight (but not strong) preference for #1. Thanks for bringing up this issue! —AFreshStart (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support any, with a preference for 3. Any one of these is better than the current title. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support, with a preference for #3. I don't find #1 to be perfectly fitting, since the article is about uses of the analogy by both theoreticians and activists. –Ploni (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Just playing devil's advocate (and probably over-parsing the differences), I could argue than an analogy would not be "in" those rights. It could be in theory, or in advocacy, but not in the purported rights themselves. I'm actually not that bothered by that issue, however, and I agree that any option would be better than the present pagename. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- I suggested using "in" instead of "and" in the previous conversation because the article concerns the usage of the analogy in the context of animal rights; the "and" might make it look like the two topics are only loosely related imo. --Kzkzb (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Definitely not over-parsing, that's a pretty good point (it actually came across my mind after posting). I reckon Holocaust analogy in animal rights advocacy is more accurate / grammatical. –Ploni (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Just playing devil's advocate (and probably over-parsing the differences), I could argue than an analogy would not be "in" those rights. It could be in theory, or in advocacy, but not in the purported rights themselves. I'm actually not that bothered by that issue, however, and I agree that any option would be better than the present pagename. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know if I should participate to a move request I started, but I also have a preference for the third title: #2 is too similar to the previous name of this page ("Animal rights and the Holocaust"), increasing the likelihood of a move request; #3 is preferable over #1 since there is no Wikipedia page named "Animal rights theory" as I'm writing this, making #3 a less astonishing title. --Kzkzb (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Nazi analogy and animal rights I found that there is a Wikipedia article called Nazi analogies and also category:Nazi analogies. Since that seems to already be an established term to apply to these sorts of analogies in many contexts, then I think it is worth keeping in this case too. I do not see a strong reason to make a distinction between Nazi behavior and the Holocaust, even though many sources refer to the Holocaust rather than Nazis generally. I support simply "animal rights" because that also is a common term. If we choose existing terms this interconnects better with other articles, which makes the subject easier to communicate. Bluerasberry (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support any; prefer #3 over #1, per precision and concision, and over #2 because it seems like a slightly awkward elision of either "Holocaust analogy in [the field of] animal rights", or of the wording in #1. Mathglot (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I feel that "Holocaust analogy in animal rights" reads a little strangely. While "analogy" can be used in the collective sense, as it sounds here, it is usually treated as a singular and prefaced with a "the" or an "an". Secondly, I wonder if using "Holocaust analogy" makes the subject sound too much a set phrase, when, as far as I am aware, none of the sources actually say "Holocaust analogy". I therefore wonder is a preferable variant that avoids both the reading issue and the potential of being misconstrued as mentioned above might be Holocaust comparisons in animal rights. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. After reading more comments from editors, I want to say that #3 is fine with me, and I prefer pretty much any new proposal here to be superior to the existing pagename. I'm ok with "comparisons". "In animal rights advocacy" isn't bad, but maybe a little verbose. I don't like "Nazi analogy", because it could sound like critics of animal rights compare animal rights activists to Nazis, which is the opposite of the subject here. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish: If the title were "Holocaust analogy in animal rights", then would you object to mutual linking between this article and Nazi analogies, and to categorizing this article in category:Nazi analogies? Bluerasberry (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- That would all be fine with me. Thanks for asking. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support I support option № 3 (Holocaust analogy in animal rights). Quick Quokka [talk] 18:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish: If the title were "Holocaust analogy in animal rights", then would you object to mutual linking between this article and Nazi analogies, and to categorizing this article in category:Nazi analogies? Bluerasberry (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
These images have been removed twice, the first time citing WP:OR in the edit summary, and the second time citing WP:ONUS.
While I don't agree with the topic of the article or the analogy at all, I think the images should remain there.
I do not see how the picture could even begin to be understood as "Original research", or something that can be verified. --Quick Quokka [talk] 18:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion clearly shows editor consensus to remove these from the lead. My first claim of original research was incorrect, but the majority of editors felt that this was gratuitous imagery of Holocaust victims (see MOS:SHOCKVALUE, which has specific guidelines on how these sorts of images should be used). The reasoning is discussed at length in the "Lead image used in article", and included a wide range of editors' opinions. —AFreshStart (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class Animal rights articles
- Mid-importance Animal rights articles
- WikiProject Animal rights articles
- C-Class Jewish history-related articles
- Low-importance Jewish history-related articles
- WikiProject Jewish history articles
- C-Class Germany articles
- Low-importance Germany articles
- WikiProject Germany articles
- C-Class animal articles
- Low-importance animal articles
- WikiProject Animals articles
- C-Class Veganism and Vegetarianism articles
- Low-importance Veganism and Vegetarianism articles
- WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism articles